Gaurry wrote:In a category "best effects" we estimate efforts. What to estimate in a category "best no-effects"?

That's not true. That's why it's called "Best Use of Effects," not simply "Best Effects." The measurement is how well and effective effects are used to make the video that much more rewarding/satisfying to watch. How much "effort" somebody puts into a video is something entirely different.

In "Best No-Effects," the measurement is how effective a video is in it's purpose regardless of that lack of effects.

it is way harder to get a great popular video done without the use of effects. We should apprecite it! There are still concept that just don't need any effects at all.

this video shows that it does not need special effects to be interesting, compelling, or memorable. Entrants to this category will be limited to basic edits like cuts, simple transitions, simple text, and very subtle masking (such as lip flap removal).

That's how I see this category and I like it this way.

Koopiskeva wrote:

Gaurry wrote:In a category "best effects" we estimate efforts. What to estimate in a category "best no-effects"?

That's not true. That's why it's called "Best Use of Effects," not simply "Best Effects." The measurement is how well and effective effects are used to make the video that much more rewarding/satisfying to watch. How much "effort" somebody puts into a video is something entirely different.

In "Best No-Effects," the measurement is how effective a video is in it's purpose regardless of that lack of effects.

Same coin, different sides.

I agree with the above statements. In a contest that is decided by "viewers", it can be hard to stand out without effects. But this doesn't necessarily mean that the videos don't deserve to be recognized. (Even when you go to cons, you see that the audience is less likely to clap for a video without effects)

And also, the "no effects" category is just as relevant as the "best use of effects" category. Many people don't realize that "no effects" videos can actually be more time consuming and require even more effort than videos with effects. This is because not using effects forces "non effect editors" to choose their scene selection much more carefully than "effect editors". For many of my AMVs, I spent days tinkering with a measly 10 seconds of video. A lot of times, it can be hard for a viewer to see and understand just how much effort can go into "no effect" videos. So with this in mind, I feel that this category is a nice way for them to get some spotlight.

Otohiko wrote:I agree that in fact not just this category, but several of the categories need to be better-defined. However the REAL problem here is that neither the editors nor the viewer-voters actually read the definitions, let alone agree with them. So maybe a better name for the category would be more appropriate, but then that's also tricky to categorize. Something like "best montage" or "best internal sync" or "best use of straight cuts" - they all sound dumb and, in some sense, I think the voters will either not get or not agree with what all those things are.

Any suggestions?

I think that the "no effects category" should have a few special rules for determining if it is a "no effect" video. It should then be filtered after the initial nomination process. Once the top 20 list is determined, someone should skim through them and remove (x) number of videos that definitely shouldn't be classified as "no effects". Then a (x) number of videos should be added to the list in order to replace the removed ones.

The only thing that may be responsible for the current situation, would be the ignorance and negligence?

I expected coming to the finals with Number 1, everybody has believed in it, but... according to these facts (above), the problem is not with the popularity or the experience/quality of my video, but with the other vids in Best No-Effects category, because they are better in all respects than mine, apart from that those AMVs have effects or not?

kireblue wrote:I think that the "no effects category" should have a few special rules for determining if it is a "no effect" video. It should then be filtered after the initial nomination process. Once the top 20 list is determined, someone should skim through them and remove (x) number of videos that definitely shouldn't be classified as "no effects". Then a (x) number of videos should be added to the list in order to replace the removed ones.

In 2005 I labeled one of my videos with "using Special Fx". This got removed/unchecked by some mod or other staff. It was striked out so I couldn't recheck it again (it's still striked out). As far as I remember I didn't even got a PM or email that notified me about it. I wasn't even really active in the forums in 2005 so it really made me wonder why a mod came across my vid (the forum response to the announcement was more or less not existing because I was new).

I just wanted to tell this story, because I think that a mod should go through the VCA semi nominations for non-fx and check them. Maybe the aboth handling should come back, but just with notifying the editor of course. It takes time and effort, but shouldn't this be worth some days?

I expected coming to the finals with Number 1

It just came to my mind that this is very sad. A excellent non-fx video didn't came into the finals because of some bullshit. That's tragic.

It just came to my mind that this is very sad. A excellent non-fx video didn't came into the finals because of some bullshit. That's tragic.

yeah, this is just another aspect of the VCAs that should be tweaked by next year.

Video/editor X not belonging in category Y encompasses just about all of the legitimate complaints the VCAs have ever and probably will ever have. That's the meme. Effects heavy vids for best no-effects, non-parody for best parody, trolls and recluses for most helpful, people at a plateau or a slump for most improved. That's how it all works, don't you get it?

Bauzi wrote:It just came to my mind that this is very sad. A excellent non-fx video didn't came into the finals because of some bullshit. That's tragic.

yeah, this is just another aspect of the VCAs that should be tweaked by next year.

Video/editor X not belonging in category Y encompasses just about all of the legitimate complaints the VCAs have ever and probably will ever have. That's the meme. Effects heavy vids for best no-effects, non-parody for best parody, trolls and recluses for most helpful, people at a plateau or a slump for most improved. That's how it all works, don't you get it?